new show review: Journeyman
September 25th, 2007 by screenwriterguy
I tried writing a time travel movie once. It doesn’t work. If I could use a time machine to go back in time, I’d tell my younger self not to write a time travel movie.
To successfully pull it off, one must make the rules of one’s fictional conceit and universe extremely clear to the viewer, while still satisfying logic. That’s why Groundhog Day works, and Journeyman does not. One must find a simple method of exposition that keeps the hero and audience understanding what is happening without feeling forced. That is why Quantum Leap works, and Journeyman does not. One must give one’s protagonist a real possibility of affecting the outcome, despite the immutability and paradox of time shifting. This is why Back to the Future works, and Journeyman very much does not.
In Journeyman we have your standard story of an everyguy being pulled through time inexplicably, presumably because the cosmos/God/karma/Oprah wants him to “set things right.” My first problem stemmed from how tame his reaction was. He suddenly started popping through time, and barely shrugged. Seriously, if I appeared in 1987, I would FREAK OUT. (And then I’d go to Hollywood and pitch the 1989 through 1999 Oscar winners. Maybe warn some people about that ozone hole thing. But first I would FREAK OUT.) I’d want to know what the hell was going on. I’d try to talk it out with every friend I had, and then some. But I would never, never utter that horrible, cringe-inspiring sci-fi line: “No, the year! What YEAR is this?”
But the biggest problem–and this is Screenwriting 101-was the lack of obstacles for our hero to actively overcome. The Journeyman did not, if you’ll forgive me, have a journey. He started popping around in time. He witnessed stuff. His iPhone conveniently told him what happened in the future. Then more popping, witnessing, and iPhoning until the show was over. Yawn. Granted, his boss and wife came down on him hard, but that was so extreme I wasn’t buying into that, either. It was a protagonist with whom we didn’t identify doing stuff we didn’t care about.
Best aspect: The potential for a love triangle with women existing in different times.
Worst aspect: No real foothold for enjoying the story.
Verdict: Won’t watch again.
Odds of success: I’d be shocked if it’s around after Christmas.
Similar Posts:
Posted in Reviews |
Sep 26th 2007 at 7:27 am
Thank you SWG for a great review! I thought I was alone in not liking this show. The only reason I attempted to watch the first episode is that I really admired Kevin McKidd’s acting in Rome. With that said, I was unable to continue watching the pilot on DVR for longer than 30 minutes. Your explanations gave me more insight into why I did not like it and confirmed why I did like all of the other time-travel works you cited.
Sep 26th 2007 at 12:45 pm
Thanks, SoCalCritic.
Yeah, I was hoping to like it for Kevin McKidd’s sake, as well. (And one of my housemates was into it, though she pretty much admitted that the hot guy component was a major factor.) But in the end, I’d much, much rather watch him tooling about in Roman history than San Francisco.
Oct 1st 2007 at 8:35 pm
You make me long for Groundhog Day and Back to the Future. Good freakin’ movies…
Oct 2nd 2007 at 3:05 pm
I too was totally disappointed with this show but mostly because it was very similar to a book that I read many years ago called The Time traveler’s Wife (I think) which was great and this show does no justice to the seed idea. I really like Kevin McKidd but I dont have much hope—I dont find myself thinking that I might watch it again….oh well!